RetroDaze
Wait'll
they get a load
of me.
they get a load
of me.
CONTEST WINNER!
OFFICIAL
CONTEST WINNER!
Forum Comments List
Displaying 18271-18280 of 49814 results.
| ID | Thread | Description | Posted By | Posted On | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 32696 | Importing Articles From RetroJunk | NLogan, Ace Attorney, everybody! | jkatz | Dec 31, 2016 |  |
| 32695 | How was your year of 2016? | Apparently we are not alone in feeling this year has been just a bit overwhelming...<br><br><br><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z04M6NhkIKk" allowfullscreen="" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0"></iframe> | Vaporman87 | Dec 31, 2016 | |
| 32694 | The Café | We're going to see the new movie "Sing" today. I hope it's as good as Illumination's previous film: The Secret Life of Pets. | Mr Magic | Dec 31, 2016 | |
| 32693 | Carolco Pictures | The first three Rambo films. | Mr Magic | Dec 31, 2016 | |
| 32692 | Nabisco | What else can be said... they make ALL the good stuff. Oreos, Nilla Wafers, Ritz crackers, Chips Ahoy cookies, Nutter Butters, Newtons, Barnum's Animals, Teddy Grahams, etc.<br> | Vaporman87 | Dec 31, 2016 | |
| 32691 | Tri-Star Pictures | It's all about Pegasus.<div><br><div><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/eponUG-ArAs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe></div></div> | Mr Magic | Dec 31, 2016 | |
| 32690 | The Post-Christmas Blues | I think Christmas ending doesn't affect me nearly as much as it used to. I feel more of the blahs when Fair Week ends than Christmas. <br> | Vaporman87 | Dec 31, 2016 | |
| 32689 | Tri-Star Pictures | I can't think of Tri-Star and not immediately refer to the disastrous 1998 Godzilla film. That is the first thing that comes to my head with regard to Tri-Star. But aside from that, they have been involved in a number of awesome films.<br> | Vaporman87 | Dec 31, 2016 | |
| 32688 | Importing Articles From RetroJunk | <blockquote rel="Linux_Sage"><b>Linux_Sage wrote :</b><br><i> I wonder if there are copyright and other legal roadblocks regarding this. Sure you may be the authors but I'd check the user agreements and other clauses RetroJunk uses to verify whether they claim some sort of ownership of whatever articles the users produce. </i><b>-end quote<br></b></blockquote>Linux I think you were right to suggest that we look into it, and I did.<br><br>I think there is no problem whatsoever. First I could not even locate a copyright visible on Retro Junk although he likely has one. Second hypothetically if he decided he did have some proprietary rights and attempted to go after this site in court he could land himself in trouble because he uses unlicensed images of iconic characters, images of films, and television all over his site (using the reasoning to go after us in the first place). However even that doesn't jive because Fair use <span>in US copyright law covers us (and him, and any other fansites of licensed properties i.e. toys, films, television, cartoon, food products, etc or just about anything we cover in our nostalgia).<br><br>Fair use covers this specific issue I think even if we quote ourselves verbatim for the text and for the pictures as they were likely garnered from our own sources (personal) or public sources (previously put out to public access on the web) so we are not stealing our own creative works we are just republishing it in a new form, anthology, or what you will with a different publisher or venue. Authors do it all the time and unless they specifically sign over the rights to the works they retain them. We were not paid by him to write the articles so there are no first sale doctrines, we voluntarily submitted them as we do here.<br><br>We have a good faith defense even if we are in error because it is reasonable to believe one's own views, memories, stories, and history can be told and retold and are possibly biographical in nature or our express opinions if we are reviewing products and it is reasonable to suppose that we retain rights to our own writing whether explicitly put down in terms of contract or not, which we never formally did with either RetroJunk or RetroDaze. Now if some other clod tried to copy our works as their own we or the sites may have recourse. Or if some nerdbomber tried to copy their sites exactly it could be a problem. Whereas we are reposting our own stuff I think there is little anyone could do to stop us. <br><br>At any rate such frequent mention of RetroJunk in our articles and on the site here is free advertising for him and an homage to the great site it once was. The only thing created by these sites and covered by copyright would be the sites themselves. The creative works on the sites would be under those who created them in my opinion. While not entirely in the public domain (the reason why the wayback machine and internet archive are not sued to the stone age for completely copying websites) our works are publicly accessible and if we decide to put them out there again I feel it is our prerogative. <br><br>Bottom line is this he cannot assert copyright ownership over our works because he cannot establish ownership through authorship (we are the authors), it is not a tangible medium i.e. published book, record, toy, etc., each of our works was never registered for copyright (required for litigation), and in the case of the already said and done Rick's article and mine that is submitted but not yet up both mention that it was previously published on Retrojunk.<br><br>I feel we are covered by Copyright infringement rules, Copyright law, the Digital Millennium Copyright act, and Fair Use.<br></span> | NLogan | Dec 31, 2016 | |
| 32687 | The Post-Christmas Blues | Well I used to be sort of sad Christmas was over when I was a child because that meant winter break was almost over and I'd have to get right back to school but since I have to work a majority of the time anyway doesn't really affect me anymore. | Linux_Sage | Dec 31, 2016 | |
